10-26-2010, 08:23 PM
Hello all,
Some great responses to my earlier post, and excellent points raised.
A few things really got me thinking though. It was pointed out that colour medieval images of battle scenes were not relevant to the Roman era, as they were not Roman. They may not be Roman, but they were showing the same thing just at different times. If forge-blackened armour was practical for medieval troops, why would it not be just as practical for Romans? Do we have a date when 'shiny' became bad and 'grotty black' became good?
Also another quite rightly raised point was that armour would not need to be mass produced very often in Roman times, and so no excuse for not polishing when it was made. This scenario must also apply to the middle ages then, but still that blackened armour...
The fact that we do have some surviving colour images of Roman armour in frescos and mosaics, well I do feel a bit wary of what we see in those as they tend to show an idealised world of heroes and gods and gladiators etc. No doubt if you wanted to pay for and impress your visitors with your new fresco or floor, you would want Achilles to be in the shiniest armour possible. Imagine if the centre of London was buried and dug up in two thousand years, well they would have many thousands of postcards, T-shirts and mugs with images of British troops on, all showing what they looked like in the year 2010. They would be able to say that British infantrymen wore scarlet jackets and big bearskin hats and the cavalry wore extra shiny armour! (I bet it would impress the Afghans though!) I am probably wrong, but as far as I know, the only images of actual combat troops, such as Trajan's column etc. have lost all colour. So I feel that yes, gladiators would have been as sexy as possible for the viewing public etc, but if, as a member of the tenth legion in darkest Germany, the only people to see your armour were about to be killed, why feel the need.
Lastly, there was a point made about the Romans not fighting in trenches. Well I am sure that I have read that they made extensive use of trenches during sieges and the like, and don't forget that after every day's march through enemy territory, they built marching forts, which had big trenches around them.
I understand that when it comes to re-enactments, the public want to see 'sexy' Romans as they see on TV, but I do think that trying to conceal a body of troops THAT shiny on the battlefield or laying an ambush, well it would be a serious drawback.
Some great responses to my earlier post, and excellent points raised.
A few things really got me thinking though. It was pointed out that colour medieval images of battle scenes were not relevant to the Roman era, as they were not Roman. They may not be Roman, but they were showing the same thing just at different times. If forge-blackened armour was practical for medieval troops, why would it not be just as practical for Romans? Do we have a date when 'shiny' became bad and 'grotty black' became good?
Also another quite rightly raised point was that armour would not need to be mass produced very often in Roman times, and so no excuse for not polishing when it was made. This scenario must also apply to the middle ages then, but still that blackened armour...
The fact that we do have some surviving colour images of Roman armour in frescos and mosaics, well I do feel a bit wary of what we see in those as they tend to show an idealised world of heroes and gods and gladiators etc. No doubt if you wanted to pay for and impress your visitors with your new fresco or floor, you would want Achilles to be in the shiniest armour possible. Imagine if the centre of London was buried and dug up in two thousand years, well they would have many thousands of postcards, T-shirts and mugs with images of British troops on, all showing what they looked like in the year 2010. They would be able to say that British infantrymen wore scarlet jackets and big bearskin hats and the cavalry wore extra shiny armour! (I bet it would impress the Afghans though!) I am probably wrong, but as far as I know, the only images of actual combat troops, such as Trajan's column etc. have lost all colour. So I feel that yes, gladiators would have been as sexy as possible for the viewing public etc, but if, as a member of the tenth legion in darkest Germany, the only people to see your armour were about to be killed, why feel the need.
Lastly, there was a point made about the Romans not fighting in trenches. Well I am sure that I have read that they made extensive use of trenches during sieges and the like, and don't forget that after every day's march through enemy territory, they built marching forts, which had big trenches around them.
I understand that when it comes to re-enactments, the public want to see 'sexy' Romans as they see on TV, but I do think that trying to conceal a body of troops THAT shiny on the battlefield or laying an ambush, well it would be a serious drawback.
Vale
Fruitbat
A.K.A Dave
Fruitbat
A.K.A Dave
